In the politics of abortion, Christians frequently resort to common ground arguments. Up to a point, there’s nothing wrong with that. To work within the democratic system, we need to persuade as many voters as we can.
However, use of common ground arguments shouldn’t monopolize the terms of the debate. For one thing, it’s important for Christians to be conscious of our own Christian reasons for opposing abortion. When we keep framing the issue in terms of common ground, it’s easy to lose sight of that.
Of course, the stock objection is that Christian arguments are useless in the political arena because they are only persuasive to fellow Christians. But that’s unduly blinkered.
It’s important for unbelievers to know how Christians reason. Indeed, that’s an aspect of evangelism. If we never tell then what we think and why we think it, how can we ever expect to win any converts to the faith?
Instead of framing the debate exclusively in terms of the “personhood” of the “fetus,” let’s consider the issue in more theological terms: the gift of life.
In Scripture, children are a gift from God. And a very precious gift at that.
So if God gives us a gift, how should we treat his gift? Should we destroy it? Is that any way to treat the gift of life? Is that anyway to treat his gift of children?
Suppose a friend gives you a potted plant as a gift. It doesn’t look like much at the time. But if you plant it and water it and fertilize it, it will grow into a wonderful flowering shrub. Fragrant and lovely to behold.
Would you toss the potted plant in the dumpster because, at the time you receive it, the plant was underdeveloped? I hope not.
For one thing, that would be very disrespectful to your friend. And, for another thing, that misses the point. So what if the plant is immature at this stage in its development? Everything has to start somewhere. The point is what it will become. And there’s also a certain joy in watching it grow. The anticipation. The discovery. The unfolding life. Each phase is special. Unrepeatable.
Do we uproot a rose bush in winter because it doesn’t bloom that time of year? That would be pretty stupid. No. We wait for Spring. We long for Spring.
Even if a baby in the womb is underdeveloped, so what? It’s still a gift from God. And it’s meant to be underdeveloped at that stage in its gestation.
The argument that to throw out a gift disrespects the gift-giver is a common ground argument. Everybody is related to God as creator.
ReplyDeleteYou're confounding epistemic common ground with metaphysical common ground. A common ground argument presupposes a point of agreement between two or more parties.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that everyone is related to God as creator is not a common ground argument unless his Creatorship is acknowledged by the parties in question.
It’s important for unbelievers to know how Christians reason. Indeed, that’s an aspect of evangelism. If we never tell then what we think and why we think it, how can we ever expect to win any converts to the faith?
ReplyDeleteThis really is important, and Paul was all over it in 1 Cor 1-3.
In Scripture, children are a gift from God. And a very precious gift at that.
So if God gives us a gift, how should we treat his gift? Should we destroy it? Is that any way to treat the gift of life? Is that anyway to treat his gift of children? ... Even if a baby in the womb is underdeveloped, so what? It’s still a gift from God. And it’s meant to be underdeveloped at that stage in its gestation.
But this doesn't seem like the strongest thing that could be said, in the light of the fact that we are trying to also provide an example of how Christians think. It is maybe a very gracious thing to say, but children are much more than a "gift". They are a tremendous lifelong responsibility. They are a lot of work. And that sort of thing is probably not the thing to say that's going to be the most attractive to non-Christians. But it's a part of the mix. And I'm sure there are other things as well.
While I think it's the gift of life, I can hear the ardent pro-choice feminists emphasizing what a burden it is to carry a baby to term, to care for it, and to raise it.
ReplyDeleteThey would ask Christians to see how they reason.
Well, if somebody gave you a classic Duesenberg as a birthday present, that would require a lot of upkeep, but it would still be a fabulous present.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what a Duesenberg is, I'm guessing a car, but I get your point.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that while you and I think of unborn life as a wonderful gift, the pro-abortion feminist thinks of it as a potential trojan-horse gift that could wreak destruction on a woman's autonomy.
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't know what a Duesenberg is, I'm guessing a car..."
Another nail in the coffin of public education.
Whaddya know. I made a good guess.
ReplyDeleteTUAD,
ReplyDeleteI think you're onto something there and it goes deeper than the philosophical arguments with regard to motivation. For Christian truth is inherently sacrificial after the pattern of Christ. Christians rightly focused on Christ have no problem sacrificing such things as time, money, comfort and autonomy for the glory of God in such as the gift of life. But the pro-abortion feminists, focused primarily on themselves, have a problem with self-sacrifice. While they wouldn't argue this way they consider it better to sacrifice an unborn baby, justifying the act by denying the value of the baby in some manner, so that they can keep from having to sacrifice as all parents must for their children.
While this may not seem like a satisfactory argument to make in the public square, I believe it does go to the heart of the matter. To change anything, the feminists must internally embrace self-sacrifice for others at least as noble and desirous if not as something that glorifies God.
Perhaps every life is a gift.
ReplyDeleteIs every life of the same "value", though?
If not, how does one measure that worth?
"While I think it's the gift of life, I can hear the ardent pro-choice feminists emphasizing what a burden it is to carry a baby to term, to care for it, and to raise it."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm no ardent pro-choice feminist, but they'd be right - it IS a burden. Very few women experience pregnancy as just "me with a bigger tummy". Most suffer to some degree with months of nausea, fatigue, muscle pains and so on. Heck, my pregnancy was fairly easy as they go, and I still had nausea and fatigue and heartburn and pelvic girdle pain and broken sleep and so on. I was pro-life, and our baby was wanted and loved, but that didn't alter the fact that pregnancy was a burden. Frankly, it sucked. So did childbirth.
In other words, I think Christians - particularly men, PR-wise - need to be very careful about dismissing or denying the physical and emotional toll on a woman that pregnancy and childbirth take. A classic Duesenberg can be ignored... the baby causing you physical agony night after night cannot. A plant can be fobbed off to the neighbor for a week while you go on holiday... a fetus, not so much.
In my experience most women support abortion from the autonomy angle, so I'm not sure focussing on the gift-ness of the baby is likely to convince them. Their response would probably be "But I don't WANT it!", and (unless you customarily force your gifts on unwilling recipients) I'm not sure how you'd respond.
It is fair enough to point out what Christians bring to the table in their own moral discussions of abortion, although we have to figure out what Scriptures form the basis for statements like "children are a gift from God," we have to assess the social context of the statements, and decide if they constitute something that can be applied across the board, or whether there are difficulties involved. If you don't do your exegesis, some Calvinist will accuse you of spooftexting.
ReplyDeleteAnd then, considerations that Christians bring to the table that are not common ground with nonbelievers are going to have limited value in providing a basis for law. Humanae Vitae-supporting Roman Catholics who think children are a gift from God think we shouldn't prevent those gifts from coming by the use of artificial birth control. But those of us who understand sola scriptura and the true meaning of the Protestant Reformation might be dismayed if we lived in a state dominated by Catholics and they tried to impose a ban on artificial birth control. (For some reason, at this point Monty Python's The Meaning of Life keeps popping into my head). If they think every sperm is sacred and we don't, we surely would oppose their making their own views a matter of law. Similarly, if Christians have reasons for not getting abortions that unbelievers don't share, that provides believers with a moral basis for not getting an abortion, but it might not be helpful in getting the body politic to forcible eliminate abortion through legal means.
C. S. Lewis wrote: I A great many popular blue prints for a Christian society are merely what the Elizabethans called ‘eggs in moonshine’ because they assume that the whole society is Christian or that the Christians are in control. This is not so in most contemporary States. Even if it were, our rulers would still be fallen men, and, therefore neither very wise nor very good. As it is, they will usually be unbelievers. And since wisdom and virtue are not the only or the commonest qualifications for a place in the government, they will not often be even the best unbelievers.
In short, if you want to explain why Christians tell their own not to get abortions, these considerations are relevant. If you are looking for a basis for getting Caesar to ban abortion (and in the New Testament the government is always Caesar), then you're gonna need those common ground arguments.
Smokering: "Their response would probably be "But I don't WANT it!", and (unless you customarily force your gifts on unwilling recipients) I'm not sure how you'd respond."
ReplyDeleteThis comment brought to mind the Calvinism vs. Arminianism discussions.
And, uh, I'm very, Very, VERY joyful that I've been given the gift of divine Election which I've freely chosen, uh, or, um, received of my libertarian free will.
;-)
It also brings to mind the confounding nature of sin against the understanding of truth; namely, framing sin as desiring anything other than what is the will of God. If you desire God's will, then there's no problem. Life makes sense. however, if you desire something that's not in God's will you run into all manner of apparent quandaries.
ReplyDeleteSMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“Well, I'm no ardent pro-choice feminist, but they'd be right - it IS a burden. Very few women experience pregnancy as just ‘me with a bigger tummy’. Most suffer to some degree with months of nausea, fatigue, muscle pains and so on. Heck, my pregnancy was fairly easy as they go, and I still had nausea and fatigue and heartburn and pelvic girdle pain and broken sleep and so on. I was pro-life, and our baby was wanted and loved, but that didn't alter the fact that pregnancy was a burden. Frankly, it sucked. So did childbirth.”
But, of course, most women are, themselves, the product of that very same process. Every mother had a mother. Yet they don’t complain about what their own mother went through.
“In other words, I think Christians - particularly men, PR-wise - need to be very careful about dismissing or denying the physical and emotional toll on a woman that pregnancy and childbirth take.”
i) I don’t buy into the feminist double standard that men need to be very careful what they say around women–as if women are fainting violets.
Do women want to be treated as equals or not? Should women be very careful what they say around men?
ii) Moreover, I’m not the one who’s casting the issue in women-only terms. If you expect the father of the child to be supportive, then he needs to be treated as a coequal partner. You can’t tell men that a woman should have the final say, but also tell them that men need to assume responsibility. That’s a two-way street. Either both parties have an equal say or one party has the final say. If the latter, then you can’t hold men accountable while you simultaneously disenfranchise them from the decision-making process.
“In my experience most women support abortion from the autonomy angle, so I'm not sure focussing on the gift-ness of the baby is likely to convince them.”
They themselves were babies once upon a time. So how do they view themselves? Do they view themselves as a gift or a burden?
“Their response would probably be ‘But I don't WANT it!’, and (unless you customarily force your gifts on unwilling recipients) I'm not sure how you'd respond.”
Well, that’s a very patronizing view of women. In most cases, pregnancy is the result of consensual sex. So no one is “forcing” this gift on them.
Do you think that men should have a patronizing view of women? Your rhetoric is deeply conflicted at this point.
Rob Zechman said...
ReplyDelete“Perhaps every life is a gift. Is every life of the same ‘value’, though? If not, how does one measure that worth?”
That’s not a simple question to answer. Even if everyone has the same intrinsic value, we naturally tend to value some people more than others (e.g. family, friends).
Likewise, there’s a difference between the value we put on people and the value which God puts on people–which may also vary.
Victor Reppert said...
ReplyDelete“It is fair enough to point out what Christians bring to the table in their own moral discussions of abortion, although we have to figure out what Scriptures form the basis for statements like ‘children are a gift from God,’ we have to assess the social context of the statements, and decide if they constitute something that can be applied across the board, or whether there are difficulties involved. If you don't do your exegesis, some Calvinist will accuse you of spooftexting.”
So what does that mean, Victor? Do you deny that, in Scripture, children are a gift from God?
“And then, considerations that Christians bring to the table that are not common ground with nonbelievers are going to have limited value in providing a basis for law.”
That depends, in part, on the percentage of Christian voters. It can be quite germane to state laws in the Bible-belt (to take one example).
“Humanae Vitae-supporting Roman Catholics who think children are a gift from God think we shouldn't prevent those gifts from coming by the use of artificial birth control. But those of us who understand sola scriptura and the true meaning of the Protestant Reformation might be dismayed if we lived in a state dominated by Catholics and they tried to impose a ban on artificial birth control.”
In a democratic system, that’s the luck of the draw.
“If they think every sperm is sacred and we don't, we surely would oppose their making their own views a matter of law.”
Part of the democratic process involves a public debate over the pros and cons of just such issues. And, yes, there are winners and losers. But that’s the nature of the democratic process.
“In short, if you want to explain why Christians tell their own not to get abortions, these considerations are relevant. If you are looking for a basis for getting Caesar to ban abortion (and in the New Testament the government is always Caesar), then you're gonna need those common ground arguments.”
Did I say we should avoid common ground arguments? No.
However, as far as that goes, I suspect many people would find the idea that they themselves were gifts of God (to their parents) quite appealing. So one can simply extend that appeal to their own offspring.
Steve: what I asked was precisely what the expression "children are a gift from God" means in context, and I was asking for some exegetical development on that claim. You then want to know if I deny the claim.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I were to quote "God is not willing that any should perish" in the context of the Calvinism debate. You would rightly want to know what my exegesis of the passage is, and if I had considered whether the passage really applies to all persons, or more narrowly. Were I to respond by saying "Well, are you DENYING that God is not willing that any should perish?" this wouldn't be appropriate, would it?
I'm also not comfortable with the idea in democracies religious majorities should feel free to shove religious beliefs down the throats of religious minorities. This reasoning could be extrapolated to not permitting, say, Calvinists to worship publicly. I think respect for the rights of religious minorities is essential to democracy, which is one reason why I think the job of getting a democracy off the ground in any Islamic country is going to be extremely difficult.
Steve, I think you’re reading some sinister feminist agenda into my comment when there is none. My point is simply that recognising the value of unborn life should not mean minimising the sometimes horrific effects of pregnancy and childbirth on the woman.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-choice perception of pro-lifers seems to be an unpleasant stereotype of a privileged white male redneck, rubbing his fingers together and wondering how he can keep the wimminfolk down. I certainly don’t think this is an accurate picture of the pro-life movement as a whole, but if the aim in engaging with pro-choicers is to convince them and thus save babies’ lives, pro-lifers should be aware of this stereotype and do their best to show it is wrong. What do pro-choicers typically say about pro-lifers? “They don’t care about women”. Now, that’s not always true, but sadly, I have seen a very dismissive attitude towards women by some pro-life men. I’ve read dismissive comments contrasting “a little nausea” or “the minor inconvenience of pregnancy” to Glorious Unborn Life. Well, that’s not the reality for a lot of women, and dismissing pregnancy as such to someone who’s suffered from hyperemesis or pre-eclampsia will go down like a lead balloon and likely solidify her opinion that pro-lifers are cluelessand insensitive.
It has nothing to do with women being shrinking violets; it has to do with respect in discoursing with a minority group (in the political sense of the term). White people need to be careful about telling Black people what it’s like to be Black; men need to be careful about blithely telling women what it’s like to be pregnant. It lacks credibility and comes from a position of privilege. If the aim is to save babies, not to win in a formal debate setting, pro-lifers have to respect the nuances of the situation. Coming off as clueless clods won’t help anyone.
You present a rather strange binary in your post – why do you think women can only view themselves as gifts OR burdens? It’s not an either-or. Women (and men) can recognise that they were objectively a gift from God to their mothers, and subjectively a gift in terms of giving their parents joy, while at the same time recognising that their mothers’ pregnancies and childbirths were unpleasant and yes, a burden. That’s not so hard a concept.
Nor do I think it is patronising to point out that a lot of women feel pregnancy was forced upon them. How much time have you spent talking with women who are suffering with unwanted pregnancies? A lot of them, particularly those who were using birth control, feel betrayed by their bodies. For those who are also undergoing the horrible physical symptoms of the first trimester, saying “If thisis a gift, I don’t want it” is a fairly understandable reaction. (Which is not to say that abortion is justified.)
In short, I’m not sure the gift analogy is likely to resonate with a lot of pro-choicers. Some, possibly. In the Bible we’re told that tribulations are a blessing, but we don’t go to a brother who’s lost his job and say “Well, your financial issues are piffling, this is a gift!” We say “That sucks, how can we help?” and by doing so, MAKE the situation a gift. I think we should follow the same line with unwanted pregnancies. Start by sympathising and recognising that an unwanted pregnancy does indeed suck, and then offer to help in tangible ways – a place to stay, a restraining order against a violent ex, help finding a midwife. The “this baby is a gift” thing can come later, when we’ve proven it isn’t a naïve Pollyanna attitude.
"ii) Moreover, I’m not the one who’s casting the issue in women-only terms. If you expect the father of the child to be supportive, then he needs to be treated as a coequal partner. You can’t tell men that a woman should have the final say, but also tell them that men need to assume responsibility. That’s a two-way street. Either both parties have an equal say or one party has the final say. If the latter, then you can’t hold men accountable while you simultaneously disenfranchise them from the decision-making process."
ReplyDeleteEr, I'm not sure how this relates to anything in my previous post - father's rights and even a partner's support weren't part of my discussion. At any rate, 'm not quite sure what decisions you're referring to. I believe abortion should be illegal in most circumstances, which would make the father's opinion on it moot. As for other pregnancy-related decisions, it really doesn't make sense for both parents to have equal say, simply because only one parent's body is involved in the process (after conception, obviously). Surely you aren't advocating a system in which a husband could force his wife to birth in the environment he preferred against her wishes, or legally prevent her from eating sushi if he deemed it too risky, or anything along those lines? What a horrific thought.